Judge in case of atheist attacked by Muslim: It was right on the edge of being “ethnic intimidation”

posted at 6:00 pm on February 28, 2012 by Allahpundit

Watch to the end for the coup de grace to a week of news stories about people getting killed over burned Korans. In case the headline’s unclear, Martin’s not saying that choking an atheist for mocking Mohammed constitutes intimidation (he says there isn’t enough proof to conclude that it happened, although some sort of altercation clearly did). He’s saying that mocking Mohammed is intimidating to Muslim bystanders, not unlike putting on a white hood and robe around someone who’s black. That’s a perfect Orwellian inversion of reality: The reason people get nervous when Islam is satirized or insulted is because they fear a violent reaction by Muslims, not against them. That’s why Comedy Central has made Mohammed a red line for “South Park,” that’s why newspapers only rarely reproduce the Jyllands Posten cartoons, that’s why Obama and the NATO brass are falling all over themselves to apologize for the Koran-burnings. If you saw some guy parading down the street as “Zombie Mohammed,” you’d worry too — for his safety. The taboo against insulting Islam is higher than for other faiths only because it carries more risk to the offender. This tool somehow manages to identify that — intimidation is indeed the key component — before bizarrely suggesting that it runs the other way.

Interviewer: When I spoke to him over the phone, Judge Martin acknowledged it’s his job to protect the rights of people like the atheist, no matter how offensive they might be.

Interviewer to Judge Martin: … There are some who believe you were failing to protect that right.

Judge Martin: No, I don’t think so. Here’s the thing: It’s a right, it’s not a privilege, it’s a right. With rights come responsibilities. The more that people abuse our rights, the more likely that we’re going to lose them.

Is that a warning or a threat? Eugene Volokh counters, “I … think that free speech rights are in danger when judges berate alleged crime victims for their anti-Islam speech, and thus convey the message that the legal system may be biased against those who engage in such speech and may fail to protect those people because of such speech.” Like I said the other day, it sounds to me like this guy might be a fan of the “fighting words” exception to the First Amendment by which certain types of speech can be banned if they’re likely to offend the audience to the point of violence. (That exception has come up before in Supreme Court cases dealing with hate speech.) If you accept his logic that mocking Mohammed, even in a dopey over-the-top zombie costume in the middle of a public street, is sufficient to “intimidate” Muslims, then it’s only natural that they’d lash out in order to protect themselves. And if they’re apt to lash out, the state might decide it’s worth trying to regulate insulting depictions of religious figures in order to avert violence. That’s the “hate speech” rationale for de facto blasphemy laws; the “fighting words” exception, which appends a “heckler’s veto” to the First Amendment, is the mechanism by which they could, theoretically, happen. It’s pure garbage but dangerous stuff potentially in the hands of people like this.

Update: Incidentally, there’s some confusion over whether the judge himself is Muslim or not. The audio of his lecture to the atheist in court made it sound like he said “I’m a Muslim” at one point, but Andy McCarthy argues here that it was mistranscribed and that the judge said “If I’m a Muslim” while speaking hypothetically. Doesn’t affect any of the above, though.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

I have no use for Islam at all, but I think if a person is running around in public insulting a religious belief while wearing some clown custom or any stupid apparel, he shouldn’t really be surprised if he gets his azz kicked. Even if you take out the religious-insulting part the guy should still expect someone to smack him upside the head for committing “public bufoonery”.
whatcat on February 28, 2012 at 6:31 PM

The atheist was asking for it, I’ll admit. That still doesn’t mean that judges and policemen who are supposed to enforce the law can turn a blind eye. This kind of attack was clearly a criminal act,
tom on February 28, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Yeah, I wasn’t addressing the legal aftermath, I believe all criminal acts should be handled alike. A person is no more beaten up or dead because the victim or perp is red, white, black polkadot , Druid, metrosexual, blah, blah, blah. That should have no place for that in the prosecution of any crime since it designates some people as being of lesser value than others.

For example, you have the “right” to burn the American flag in public settings, but you shouldn’t be totally shocked if somebody kicked your rear to Timbuktu and back on the spot for doing it.
whatcat on February 28, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Except that I’d bet the attacker in the flag burning case wouldn’t have his case thrown out, without any consequences.
RedCrow on February 28, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Yup, but you’d still likely have people lining up to kick your azz, lol.

And if they’re apt to lash out, the state might decide it’s worth trying to regulate insulting depictions of religious figures in order to avert violence. That’s the “hate speech” rationale for de facto blasphemy laws; the “fighting words” exception, which appends a “heckler’s veto” to the First Amendment, is the mechanism by which they could, theoretically, happen. It’s pure garbage but dangerous stuff potentially in the hands of people like this.

Yes, yes, yes, AP. Yes.

Brilliant post.

I’ve been very worried about the danger of this for years.

And Muslims aren’t the only ones that are prone to violence when presented with offending speech that “reasonable” (the legal standard for fighting words) people aren’t.

Judge Martin: No, I don’t think so. Here’s the thing: It’s a right, it’s not a privilege, it’s a right. With rights come responsibilities. The more that people abuse our rights, the more likely that we’re going to lose them.

So we were founded as a country that had God-given rights that the government had to respect. And with those rights come responsibilities, right? God did not just give us rights. He gave us a moral code by which to exercise them.

See, that’s what Ron Paul sort of leaves out. He leaves out rights and responsibilities that we have from God that this Constitution is to protect. And he says, “No, we just have rights, and then that’s it.” No, we don’t. America is a moral enterprise….

I recognize they’re not quite making exactly the same point, and of course one is a judge and another is not, but both seem to be talking about how we have a responsibility to use exercise our rights in certain ways. I mostly disagree with that, certainly as a matter of law.

This judge comes off as a nut. He acknowledges that the man had a right to costume himself as he did, but then says that this doesn’t mean that he “should” do that. Who the hell appointed this guy the dictator of what people “should” do? If the guy has a right to express himself, that’s all this clown should concern himself with.

By birth. American by choice….of course, had I known that you guys were going to just turn the US into a bigger version of the bankrupt, spineless, nanny and police state UK, I might have stayed home. :-)

Consider these few tidbits to see your future:

1. More than 8,000 children under the age of 10 are “registered racists” because they have made comments like “Yuck!” after tasting ethnic foods.

2. Food police can come into your home.

3. A singer on the Isle of Wight was arrested and charged with racism for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.” Not. Kidding.

4. Flying the flag of St. George is considered racist and xenophobic.

5. Yelling at Muslims to stop spitting on and throwing objects at returning soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan will get you, not them, arrested.

6. Preaching against homosexuality can get you arrested by a homosexual police community support officer.

7. Neighbourhoods like Tower Hamlets actually have morality and modesty police like they do in Saudi Arabia. Look at the signs that are all over:

8. A famous children’s author was just arrested at Gatwick last week for making a comment about how nice it would be if he could wear a hijab and get through security as breezily as Muslim women do. He was arrested for RACISM because one of the security agents was “offended.” He wasn’t commenting on religion. He was pointing out the obvious ridiculousness in requiring him to remove his belt, watch and shoes, etc., while letting nearly completely veiled women (or possibly male terrorists) through security.

George Orwell couldn’t imaging Britain today.

If you’re interested, I’ve written a lot about Islam, the new rise of anti-Semitism, and Europe on my blog. You’d be shocked to learn what is going on there. For example, in one Danish town, Jewish children were prohibited from attending public schools. Here are a couple of my pieces:

um, yeah he could, have you read his stuff??? britain is on the downslope to the world he did imagine.

chasdal on February 28, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Um, yes, I have — all of his “stuff” — and I was being a little hyperbolic.

britain is on the downslope to the world he did imagine.

I AM BRITISH BY BIRTH. I spend about half of the year in the UK because my family is still there and the place has become an Orwellian nightmare. I think that even Orwell would be surprised to see just how prescient he was.

so , of course, screaming and ranting at, say OWS, about jewish bankers, jewish plots, jewish control of the media is intimidating to jewish bystanders and ,therefore, also needs to be limited to protect the speaker?

but it’s still ok to allow hateful malicious zealots like the westboro baptist church to continue screeching about how “god hates fags” at the funerals of soldiers and murder victims because that’s *not* intimidating to homosexual bystanders? how about it being intimidating to the mourners themselves ?

but what about sharia law-public proclamation of support of which may indicate condoning stoning gays to death, executing rape victims and keeping women as baby birthing chattel with no civil rights whatsoever-isn’t that intimidating to women? shouldn’t forms of islam or muslims that support such laws be denied their freedom of speech and religion if their speech and their religious beliefs intimidates others? or does that only apply to christian beliefs- the being intimidating and therefore suppressible part?

what regressive insane backward echo chamber do they dig up these stupid hack judges out of? lady liberty as well as mr. reason and ms.logic apparently never figure into his rulings. what an ignorant puck. the beauty and greatness of the bill of rights lies in its simplicity. only a pompous self absorbed ass would think his explaining away of his stomping on the first amendment is credible. he’s not suppose to interpret the constitution- he’s suppose to apply the rule of law. and he himself is the one who blocked admitting evidence of the attack-so uh duh- that’s why there wasn’t enough evidence for his lordship. talk about judge fudge the facts. apparently this judge does not see he has any responsibility to any integrity in carrying out his duties- but rather is using his position to play the scold to those who rightly point out the dangers of making accommodations to certain groups of ideologues in attempts to subvert the laws of our nation.

the irony is not sad or pathetic but brutal- accommodating any aspects of sharia law will allow for destruction from within- the destruction of our secular democracy and the eradication of the bill of rights for nonmuslims. americans will be further endangered not protected from those who use violence ,intimidation, and domination to force their religious ideologies upon everyone. why is separation of church and state and the idea of not having a state religion only horrifying to liberals if they perceive that the religion being used is christianity or of course involves those evil jews in israel?

judges like these who so blatantly ignore our rule of law and bill of rights to accomodate violent fascists need to be removed from the bench. they are nor upholding our laws- they are undermining them by design.

He’s saying that mocking Mohammed is intimidating to Muslim bystanders

Well clearly he should be in a mental institution, not on the bench judging other people. If someone attacks someone else, clearly they were not intimidated. Mohammed was a living piece of crap and anyone who reveres him is a piece of crap.

This Mark Martin is either very stupid or insane or both. He keeps making irrelevant statements like the assaulted mocker “abused” his first amendment rights. He was exercising his first amendment right, that’s not abusing it. That the mockery was offensive was irrelevant as any competent judge would know. This man should not be a judge.

The mockery of Muhammad was not intimidating to Muslims as Judge Martin claims, but such mockery is threatening to their belief. This is why Muslims tend to get hysterical when Korans are burned or pictures of Moe are presented, and why blasphemers have to be killed: the “religion” is so fragile, being an obvious 7th century fraud, that affronts to it must be deterred as strongly as possible. If it were not for the terror of being executed for leaving this absurd “religion”, the Muslim population would have been much reduced over the centuries.

This idiot judge needs to try and pass his theories off on the Supremes and let them know they missed such a darn good opportunity to tell the Westboro Baptist troublemakers they were “way outside their first amendment rights”.

Well, the bright side is that we won’t ever have to worry about Mr. Martin’s career advancement where confirmation would be a requirement!!

Judge this does not help the community get along. Do not lecture people on what Muslims believe. We do not care. Lecture people on the laws of this country regardless of what your religious beliefs are. Why did you refuse to watch the video of what happened it may have given you the proof that you say the victim did not prove? Your failure to allow proof be submitted means you should be impeached. Since you failed to apply the law impartially. And did you speak another language in the court without having what you said tranlated for the victim? It appears that you may be one veteran that does not have my respect. We will not respect Muslims until they denounce jhad forever and respect Christians and Jews all over the world.

<I AM BRITISH BY BIRTH. I spend about half of the year in the UK because my family is still there and the place has become an Orwellian nightmare. I think that even Orwell would be surprised to see just how prescient he was.</

Judge Martin: No, I don’t think so. Here’s the thing: It’s a right, it’s not a privilege, it’s a right. With rights come responsibilities. The more that people abuse our rights, the more likely that we’re going to lose them.

That’s just ass-backwards IGNORANCE.

NO… an inalienable RIGHT does not necessitate ANY responsibility.

How can it, if it is a “right” then one can be irresponsible or not. And by the way, who “decides” what is responsible anyway. A stupid, blinkered judge?

NO… it’s the “privilege” which DEMANDS responsibility. For that which has been granted can be taken away just as easily by irresponsible behavior.

So we were founded as a country that had God-given rights that the government had to respect. And with those rights come responsibilities, right? God did not just give us rights. He gave us a moral code by which to exercise them.

See, that’s what Ron Paul sort of leaves out. He leaves out rights and responsibilities that we have from God that this Constitution is to protect. And he says, “No, we just have rights, and then that’s it.” No, we don’t. America is a moral enterprise….
I recognize they’re not quite making exactly the same point, and of course one is a judge and another is not, but both seem to be talking about how we have a responsibility to use exercise our rights in certain ways. I mostly disagree with that, certainly as a matter of law.

tneloms on February 28, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Right, it’s the matter of law that is the key point here.

There is a world of difference between what Santorum is saying and what this judge is saying. Santorum is making a general statement about principles that should guide conduct, and an unexceptional one. It’s a very mainstream idea that rights bring responsibilities with them.

What this is judge is arguing is altogether different. He’s arguing that if someone exercises their rights in a way that he regards as irresponsible, then they lose the protection of the law. That is a terribly pernicious doctrine.

Like AP’s analysis a lot. Well, actually,no, I don’t like it one bit because it’s true.

Another dangerous line of attack on our Freedom might come from here: That inflammatory words or behavior are tantamount to yelling fire! in a crowded theater. But this is a snake that can turn on its handlers since, if Moslems are so volatile that the rest of society must tip-toe around them lest they go off, then clearly they are a menace to public safety—the equivalent of an unexploded bomb left on a street corner.

My blood chills when jurists talk about “limits,” “exceptions” or “going too far” in relation to the Bill of Rights. Where in the First Amendment are these so-called limits? If a judge can arbitrarily invent exceptions to the Bill of Rights then those amendments are pointless. This judge is exactly what the Bill of Rights was designed to protect us from. If the government followed rule of law anymore this judge would be out on a corner selling apples by now.

When you say the word “America” today you’re referring to a defunct country, not this land between Canada and Mexico.

You stated, “and if they’re apt to lash out, the state might decide it’s worth trying to regulate insulting depictions of religious figures in order to avert violence.”
Should I fire up the torches and go to the Smithsonian? (ONLY A JOKE). The Smithsonian had no problem showing Jesus covered in ants, but you don’t see Catholics starting violence in our capital because of it. What the Muslim world has discovered is that they get away with it, with the help of the media. Once the media does its job, the violence will stop.

It’s perfectly politically acceptable to march and hold signs and scream “I hate Nazis!”. No one chastises such people. But how it is any different from marching, holding signs, and saying “I hate Muslims”? The only difference is political correctness. And fear of retaliation of Muslims towards anti-Islam speech. Fear and political correctness. What about courage and standing on your principles?

Paul-Cincy on February 28, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Exactly. I don’t agree with the KKK but will defend to the death their right to say what they believe and hold their parades. With freedom comes acceptance of others views. Without freedom…why bother.

My point is that the “artist” shouldn’t be surprised if somebody does try to deck him. Stupid people often end up getting smacked around.

whatcat on February 28, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Yeah, I wasn’t addressing the legal aftermath, I believe all criminal acts should be handled alike. A person is no more beaten up or dead because the victim or perp is red, white, black polkadot , Druid, metrosexual, blah, blah, blah. That should have no place for that in the prosecution of any crime since it designates some people as being of lesser value than others.

whatcat on February 28, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Yup, but you’d still likely have people lining up to kick your azz, lol.

whatcat on February 28, 2012 at 7:19 PM

You seem to be a bit confused about what is legal and what is not.
We all have the right to free speech – nobody has the right to not be offended.
Because we have the right to free speech, we have the right to not be physically attacked for exercising that right.
When you open the door to violent response to anyone’s interpretation that they are being offended then we no longer have the right to free speech. What you seem to be advocating is political correctness to the extreme.

Despite being atheist myself, I would say by far one of the greatest strengths of Christianity and some other religions as well, over Islam is that Christians do not feel obligated to attack and/or kill someone for a mere insult or mockery of their religion. Some may have the urge to do so, but generally speaking the religion is strong enough and firmly enough on the right side of right and wrong to withstand such trivia. That was not always the case (see Inquisition, Crusades, etc), but obviously Christianity has matured far beyond that phase and Islam. Perhaps in 1000 years Islam will get past their “kill all infidels” phase, but right now I don’t have much confidence in that.

OK now I’m confused. I thought no depictions of mohammed were allowed to be shown. If this is the case, how does anyone know what he looks like (especially if he’s dressed like a zombie)?

Follow me here. If no one knows what he looks like, how did the offended pantywaist muzzie know he was looking at a depiction of the founding pedophile in the first place? Why didn’t the offended pantywaist muzzie mistake what he saw for, oh I don’t know, just your run of the mill zombie?

If all I have to do is call myself a zombie mohammed for some pantywaist muzzie to get all butt-hurt, why aren’t pantywaist muzzie men and boys named mohammed constantly being killed just for having that name? I heard it was the most popular male name in the pantywaist muzzie world, and has been for some time.

Or, perhaps, these pantywaist muzzies are just looking for an excuse to get offended. And our homegrown leftie pantywaists are just foaming at the mouth to whip them into a frenzy. I’m not judging, just saying.